Press Release: Protect EJ Communities While Mitigating Climate Change

NJEJA logo ICC logo

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: March 15, 2024

Press Contacts

NJ Environmental Justice Alliance: Brooke Helmick | brooke@njeja.org

Center for the Urban Environment: Nicky Sheats, PhD, Esq. | nsheats@kean.edu 

Ironbound Community Corp.: Maria Lopez-Nunez | mlopeznunez@ironboundcc.org 

 

Environmental Justice Communities Say: 

Protect EJ Communities While Mitigating Climate Change 

 

Trenton – On March 14, the Senate Energy and Environment Committee both strengthened and voted in favor (3-2) of a Clean Energy Standard (S237/A1480). The EJ community has been actively involved in calling for a nation-leading definition of clean energy and climate change mitigation policy that reduces locally harmful GHG co-pollutants in overburdened Environmental Justice communities, and does not allow for potential loopholes or false solutions. 

 

We celebrate the passage of this strong definition, and the fact that this bill makes New Jersey a leader in ensuring states prioritize the procurement of clean energy. However, we also recognize that this bill has a long way to go before it can be enacted into law. This moment cannot be the end of the conversation, and we will continue to call for new language and provisions that actively protect EJ communities while creating new jobs and a cleaner environment. 

 

We call upon legislators to continue fine-tuning this bill by ensuring that the legislation: 

  • Reduces toxic air pollution in EJ communities by removing “net emissions” calculations;
  • Creates a strong standard for “de minimis” levels of pollution that are as close to zero as possible; and 
  • Prevents polluting facilities such as incinerators from receiving ratepayer subsidies when they violate air permits. 

 

“This moment represents a turning point for the state and the country. Including co-pollutants in the definition makes New Jersey a leader in protecting frontline communities. There is more work to be done to make sure that the bill is as protective of EJ communities as possible, but we take this moment to celebrate and honor the many advocates who have worked tirelessly to protect public health, call for climate change mitigation, and ensure that EJ communities are not left behind in the energy transition.” 

Melissa Miles

Executive Director 

New Jersey Environmental Justice Alliance 

 

“It’s so refreshing to see a holistic and necessary approach to defining clean energy. If we do not include co-pollutants, we stand to repeat the mistakes of the past where we sacrifice local communities for the so-called “greater good.” Today is an important step in leading the country towards a future that deals with both public health and climate change.” 

Maria Lopez-Nuñez

Deputy Director, Organizing and Advocacy

Ironbound Community Corportation

 

“Incorporating GHG co-pollutant reductions into a clean energy standard is the type of action the environmental justice community has been strongly recommending for many years. It will help protect communities near energy infrastructure from locally harmful co-pollutant emissions while at the same time fighting climate change.”

Nicky Sheats, Ph.D., Esq.

Director, Center for the Urban Environment

John S. Watson Institute for Urban Policy and Research at Kean University

Member of the New Jersey Environmental Justice Alliance

###

 

The New Jersey Environmental Justice Alliance is an alliance of New Jersey-based organizations and individuals working together to identify, prevent, and reduce and/or eliminate environmental injustices that exist in communities of color and low-income communities. NJEJA will support community efforts to remediate and rebuild impacted neighborhoods, using the community’s vision of improvement, through education, advocacy, the review and promulgation of public policies, training, and through organizing and technical assistance.

 ICC upholds and builds upon the principles of “Justice and Equality for All.” We strive to practice and build equity, work towards a Just Transition, and organize community on the basis of the Jemez Principles. We envision a safe, healthy, just, and nurturing Ironbound; a welcoming and fully inclusive community that supports equal and accessible opportunity and the quest for a better life. For us, revitalization means uplifting both people and place. Therefore, we aim to lead the transformation of Ironbound into a neighborhood where anyone might choose to live and current residents can remain in their homes and their community without fear of being displaced.

Nicky Sheats, Ph.D., Receives Governor’s Environmental Excellence Award

This article was originally published by Kean University on December 19, 2023.

Nicky Sheats, Ph.D., director of the Center for the Urban Environment at Kean (center) receives his award at a ceremony in Trenton from New Jersey DEP Commissioner Shawn M. LaTourette (left) and David Zimmer, executive director of the New Jersey Infrastructure Bank (right). Photo credit: NJDEP

The Director of the Center for the Urban Environment at Kean University’s John S. Watson Institute, Nicky Sheats, Ph.D., received a 2023 Governor’s Environmental Excellence Award, a premier honor recognizing outstanding environmental work in New Jersey.

Sheats, an attorney, scholar and leader in the environmental justice community, received the award in the category of environmental justice on December 18 in Trenton.

“It is an honor to receive the award, which I feel is really in recognition of what the New Jersey environmental justice community has accomplished together,” Sheats said. “This is important work.”

Sheats was one of 12 environmental leaders receiving awards.

“The achievements of this year’s award winners capture the essence of environmentalism in New Jersey and set a shining example for us all to follow,” said state Department of Environmental Protection Commissioner Shawn LaTourette. “It’s an honor to celebrate their determined efforts to protect the state’s natural resources and help others connect to nature.”

Sheats was recognized for his instrumental role in  the development and passage of New Jersey’s landmark environmental justice law, and his work establishing pollution reduction policies.

“His recent efforts seek to integrate environmental justice in climate mitigation policies called Mandatory Emissions Reductions (MER) that target reductions of associated co-pollutants, along with greenhouse gas emissions, and which impact overburdened communities,” DEP said in a statement.

Sheats convened the state’s first MER policy workgroup with the New Jersey Environmental Justice Alliance, and was lead author of a recently published paper exploring the implementation of MER policies in New Jersey, Minnesota and Delaware. 

At the Watson Institute for Urban Policy and Research, Sheats provides leadership on environmental justice, and scientific, legal, financial and other issues affecting communities throughout the state and nation.  

Kean Senior Vice President for Transformational Learning and External Affairs Joseph Youngblood, Ph.D., said Sheats has been a “visionary” leader for 20 years as director of the Center for the Urban Environment.

“Dr. Sheats was a pioneering researcher and policy expert in the environmental justice movement in America,” Youngblood said. “His work at Kean’s Watson Institute has informed state and federal policies that mitigate the cumulative impacts of environmental hazards and eliminate the disproportionate impact of environmental racism on communities of color. His life’s work and influence will have a lasting impact on society.”

Sheats said key areas being addressed from an environmental justice standpoint are cumulative impact of pollutants on neighborhoods; climate change mitigation policy that ensures communities are benefitted, rather than harmed, as they fight climate change; chemical policy and waste policy.

Sheats said credit also goes to the New Jersey Environmental Justice Alliance, the Tishman Environment and Design Center of the New School, the Ironbound Community Corporation, the South Ward Environmental Alliance and the Center for the Urban Environment.

It’s Time We Put an End to the Carbon Capture Farce

Pipes for carbon capture in a Louisiana field.

Motiva, another plant involved with a carbon capture project, lays out new built pipes in Donaldsonville, Louisiana, on June 19, 2023. (Photo: Emily Kask for the Washington Post)

This article was originally published by Common Dreams on November 14, 2023.

By: Ana Baptista, Dana Johnson

The transition away from fossil fuels is an urgent necessity, but we must ensure that renewable energy development doesn’t leave anyone behind. Environmental justice communities need real change – not a rebrand of the same discriminatory plans that slow the clock on fighting the climate crisis and reinforce the status quo.

There is a heightened focus on justice and equity in the Biden administration—but what does that look like for communities living with the realities of systemic and institutionalized discrimination? 

For generations, environmental justice communities have borne the brunt of policies and practices that have relegated our homes, workplaces, recreational spaces, and places of worship to the shadows of fossil fuel and petrochemical infrastructure. As the administration and lawmakers advance opportunities to “decarbonize” the energy sector—the largest source of climate change-causing greenhouse gases in the U.S.—many communities are given little insight into the plans and technologies marketed as the solution. As a result, environmental justice communities—those predominantly composed of people of color and those with low income—have to navigate a maze of new federal investments in obscure policies and plans. 

Specifically, carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), utilization (CCUS), hydrogen hubs, and direct air capture projects are being rolled out without transparency and our communities are targeted as development zones. It’s time for real change—not a rebrand of the same discriminatory plans that slow the clock on fighting the climate crisis and reinforce the status quo.

While CCS is being pushed as a way to cut emissions, it’s actually enabling further fossil fuel reliance. 

The emergence of carbon management initiatives, including the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) latest carbon rule proposal in tandem with the Department of Energy’s (DOE) regional hydrogen hub plan, are a major part of the problem. These initiatives are based on the promise of siphoning off greenhouse gas emissions from power plants and industrial facilities, but they often rely more on greenwashing and wishful thinking than on real solutions. They divert focus from the critical need to break free from fossil fuels, such as coal and natural gas, that disproportionately burden environmental justice communities

The reality is that CCS technology remains untested at scale, is not guaranteed to work, and won’t address other harmful pollution like particulates that wreak havoc on our communities. In fact, “…more than 95% of all deployed CCS capacity has been used for enhanced oil recovery (‘EOR’), the process of taking captured carbon dioxide (CO2) and injecting it back into depleted oil wells to further extract more fossil fuels.”

While CCS is being pushed as a way to cut emissions, it’s actually enabling further fossil fuel reliance. What’s even more infuriating is that these projects are poised to reap the benefits of federal tax credits bolstered by the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. This is a con job on the American public that will funnel funds into risky projects ultimately helping fossil fuel companies and perpetuating the systems that caused the climate crisis.

Now, CCS, CCUS, and direct air capture, along with certain types of hydrogen hubs using CCS along with natural gas, are planned for locations already overburdened by heavy industry, imposing additional risks such as leaks, pipelines blowing up, and health-harming air pollution like nitrogen oxide emissions. Unfortunately, a staggering 90% of the proposed or existing CCS/CCUS plants are located in or dangerously close to EJ communities. This means that investments in these risky schemes will inflict more damage on those already most vulnerable to pollution and climate change for years to come. Louisiana alone faces over two dozen proposals for CCS, CCUS, and hydrogen projects. 

If these energy plans move forward, EJ communities will again be collateral damage. 

One of these is a colossal $4.5 billion hydrogen plant and carbon capture complex in Ascension Parish by Air Products. This project includes carbon pipelines, wells, and underground storage that pose a grave threat to Lake Maurepas and contribute to air pollution from the new CCS plant, along with the real possibility of explosions. To make matters worse, project applicants may only carry liability for 10 years instead of the usual 50, leaving one of the poorest states with potential liabilities indefinitely.

Federal agencies promise new “regulatory regimes,” to protect EJ communities, but all we see in response to our concerns is an offering of community benefit agreements and public engagement processes that lack substantial, enforceable protections or the right to say “no.” In the absence of concrete federal protections, speculative industry proposals will capitalize on generous federal incentives like the 45Q and 45V tax credits, which allow upfront benefits without a clear mechanism by which governments will oversee and ensure the permanent storage of CO2. Likewise, the Inflation Reduction Act lengthened application timelines and opened up the criteria for which CCS projects qualify. And when disasters hit, we’ll all pay the price through skyrocketing healthcare and housing costs, along with other rising costs linked to pollution and the climate crisis. This approach not only rewards the industries that drive climate change and pollution in EJ communities, but it also perpetuates the big scam of oil, gas, and petrochemical giants.

It’s time we put an end to this farce.

EJ communities were given promises for real investment and involvement in a just energy transition through the administration’s Justice40 Initiative that would not mirror prejudicial policies of the past. If these energy plans move forward, EJ communities will again be collateral damage. There are sustainable solutions that desperately need our support and funding, including transitioning to truly clean, renewable energy such as wind and solar with an equitable transmission build-out

We have what we need to do right by EJ communities nationwide, and to stave off the worst of the climate crisis before it’s too late—it’s time to move in the right direction.

What Michigan Could Learn from New Jersey’s 2020 Cumulative Impact Law

This article was originally published by Planet Detroit on September 28, 2023.

By: Brian Allnut

Experts say all Michigan residents could benefit from the transparency in the Garden State’s pollution rules for overburdened communities.

Homes near the Marathon Petroleum refinery in southwest Detroit. Alamy.

Theresa Landrum has been fighting for environmental justice in Detroit’s heavily polluted 48217 zip code for decades, where residents suffer from disproportionate rates of asthma, cancer, respiratory problems, heart disease, miscarriages, and birth defects, all of which are associated with air pollution.

Yet companies like Marathon Petroleum and Edward C. Levy continue to pursue permits that could bring even more pollution.

Landrum said this year’s wildfire smoke worsened the bad air, turning the sky orange and leaving her coughing for days. Indeed, new research shows that although the nation’s air quality had improved following the passage of the Clean Air Act in 1970, in many states wildfire smoke has slowed or reversed much of this progress over the last two decades.   

But, she said, the new smoke threat could bring more urgency to efforts to control air pollution from other sources. “We’re not looking at cumulative impacts from all these industries,” she said. 

Activists like Landrum are focused on the collective impact of pollution from multiple sources, often concentrated in low-income areas and communities of color such as southwest Detroit.  Facilities are regulated on a case-by-case basis, although a permit could be denied if it will increase the level of one of six pollutants covered by the National Ambient Air Quality Standards and the area is already out of compliance for that pollutant. 

This approach can allow for a heavy overall pollution burden, even though individual businesses are operating within legal emissions limits. 

The concept of regulating cumulative impacts is slowly gaining traction. In January, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency released guidance outlining its authority to consider cumulative impacts in its decisions. And at least 12 state legislatures have considered or adopted legislation addressing cumulative risk or impacts, according to a University of Michigan analysis released last year.

Theresa Landrum. Photo by Joe Parnell.

To address this issue in Michigan, Landrum is working with a statewide coalition of environmental groups to push for cumulative impact legislation, influenced by New Jersey’s landmark 2020 environmental justice law that restricted the issuing of new permits or expansion of facilities in overburdened communities.

Michigan could learn from the approach organizers took in New Jersey, advocates say.  There, activists worked for years on legislation that was finally passed when the Black Lives Matter movement and public health concerns related to COVID helped galvanize support. 

Yet, advocates say passing a law in Michigan may require a slightly different approach, with a need to build support in both urban and rural areas to challenge a powerful industrial lobby in a state where Democrats hold a slim majority in the legislature.

“The health impacts, the air quality impacts, the water quality impacts are something that both rural people and urban folks that are on the fence line of big industry are dealing with,” said Christy McGillivray, legislative and political director for the Sierra Club Michigan Chapter. 

She said a smart strategy in Michigan could look at the impacts of industrial agriculture and other industries in farm country as well as urban pollution to build a broad constituency for a cumulative impact bill.

New Jersey sets a precedent

Melissa Miles, executive director of the New Jersey Environmental Justice Alliance, said New Jersey’s 2020 law came at the end of a years-long effort to bring more protections for overburdened communities in the state.

“EJ groups never dropped that banner of cumulative impacts, even when it was unpopular, even when there wasn’t political will,” Miles said.

She said the key to getting the New Jersey law over the finish line were the specific circumstances of 2020 that brought justice concerns to the fore.

“This moment happened nationally that was heard around the world, which was the Black Lives Matter movement,” Miles said. “When Black people say, ‘we can’t breathe,’ it could be the result of the quick, violent deaths at the hands of law enforcement, or it could be the slow, silent death due to air pollution.”

The disproportionate impacts from COVID-19 in Black and brown communities also highlighted the relationship between particulate matter pollution and poor health outcomes during the pandemic.

Miles said New Jersey environmental justice advocates were ready to help inform policy-making when these tragic circumstances created an appetite for reform.

The result was legislation with key cumulative impact provisions.  The law gave the state’s Department of Environmental Protection a mandate to deny permits for certain types of facilities like incinerators and sewage treatment plants seeking to locate in areas already burdened by pollution. It also required businesses to perform a cumulative impact analysis for new projects or expansions and gave the public more opportunities to influence permit applications.

Jonathon J. Smith, an attorney with the nonprofit Earthjustice, said demographic information, including race, income, and limited English proficiency, was used to help define an “overburdened” community.

And industry was barred under the law from using the promise of jobs as a reason to put a polluting facility in an overburdened community. 

This last piece gets at a common practice in Michigan. For example, Stellantis used jobs to make the case for expanding its polluting facilities on Detroit’s east side. This project received$400 million in tax incentives and at least 12 odor violations since it opened in June 2021.

After New Jersey’s law was passed, Miles said her group worked to prevent industry from undermining the legislation and ensuring residents were available to influence the new rules when regulators put them together. However, New Jersey only began enforcing the law in April 2023 and Smith said the state will have to wait and see how much regulators are “taking it to heart”.

How Michigan could get it done

Trent Wolf, who recently served as the senior advisor to Michigan House Majority Floor Leader Abraham Aiyash (D-Hamtramck), told Planet Detroit that Aiyash and State Sen. Stephanie Chang (D-Detroit) are crafting cumulative impact legislation that can stand up to litigation or constitutional challenges.

In the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision to end race-based affirmative action in college admissions, environmental justice laws that use race as a criterion for defining an overburdened community could be open to legal challenges

This ruling may have prompted the Environmental Protection Agency to drop a civil rights complaint into Louisiana’s permitting of industries in a heavily polluted area known as “cancer alley”. 

Nick Schroeck, an environmental law expert at Detroit Mercy School of Law, said state programs that incorporate race as a factor in decision-making are less vulnerable to challenges than federal ones, although the language still needs to be drafted carefully.  

Wolf said the White House’s Justice40 program, which seeks to direct 40 percent of federal climate-related funding to disadvantaged communities, could also provide a template for crafting a bill. This program excluded race when defining target areas, using other criteria as a proxy for disadvantaged communities of color. However, the screening tool used by the programs has had only mixed success in identifying these areas so far.

Previously, Michigan advocates have said the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE) already has the power under Rule 901 and Rule 228 to consider cumulative impacts, at least from air pollution, and deny permits. 

EGLE spokesperson Hugh McDiarmid said the powers provided by these rules were limited and that the agency’s air quality division “does not have the ability to do cumulative impact analysis incorporating all ways a person may be exposed to pollutants [but that] the program is designed to minimize potential health impacts of the air emissions from facilities on nearby residents.”

In Michigan, the first step toward creating a law that explicitly requires the agency to consider cumulative impacts may be engaging with impacted communities to raise awareness and get input on proposed legislation.

“For this legislation to move, it’s going to take a lot of work at the grassroots level of getting people engaged and understanding that legislation like this can have a deep impact in their community,” Wolf said. “This is a relatively new concept.”

Wolf also believes there’s the potential for urban advocates to build a coalition with rural people dealing with factory farms and facilities like chemical recycling centers and battery plants.

Pam Taylor, a farm owner in rural Lenawee County who leads the water testing program for the nonprofit Environmentally Concerned Citizens of Southeast Michigan, has been working for decades to address water quality problems created by the manure-laden discharge from industrial livestock farms. This pollution has contributed to potentially life-threatening toxic algal blooms downstream, like the 2014 Lake Erie bloom that shut down Toledo’s drinking water supply for several days.

In the past, Taylor has helped lead tours with the Sierra Club to highlight toxic industries in Detroit and Lenawee County, showing the public and mental health problems that occur when industry concentrates in certain areas.

Taylor said her sparsely populated community roughly 60 miles southwest of Detroit resembles other areas where scarce jobs and poverty drive people to work in industries that may compromise their health.

“There aren’t that many jobs, so people end up working for these big factory farms even though they hate it,” she said. “It’s basically a captured community,  just like a mining community would be Appalachia.”

Taylor said a cumulative impact bill would reduce the impact of these farms on local waterways and protect groundwater. She said that as waterways have become more polluted, communities have turned to groundwater for drinking water, a resource threatened by water-hungry industrial farms.

“A cumulative impact bill would be wonderful,” Taylor said. “It would reduce the chance of so many of these farms being crammed together in one area.”

Pushback from industry

Michigan’s powerful industrial lobby, including automakers, utilities, and chemical companies, will likely fight against a cumulative impact bill that could add new business costs.

Mike Alaimo, director of environmental and energy affairs at the Michigan Chamber of Commerce, said cumulative impact laws would add new requirements for businesses that could hurt job creation and get in the way of rebuilding the state’s aging infrastructure.

“Cumulative impacts is kind of this whole new bureaucratic layer that would function on top of an already challenging and burdensome system,” he said. “Adding more burden, just adding more regulatory costs, will simply drive businesses away.”

He said these costs could undermine technology like carbon capture, which could be used to reduce emissions from fossil fuel power plants. That technology has been challenged by environmental advocates for its potential to increase non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions like nitrogen oxides and particulate matter as well as creating possible safety issues.

And if investment is pushed away from areas of concentrated industry, Alaimo said it could lead to developing greenfield areas instead of cleaning up contamination and redeveloping brownfield sites.

Schroeck said Michiganders have good reasons to support a cumulative impact law, even if they feel relatively protected from pollution. He said the transparency and cumulative impact assessments offered by a law like New Jersey’s could shed light on pollution issues residents may not be aware of, helping influence statewide permitting and protecting public health.

“I don’t think any of us are really safe,” Schroeck said. “To the extent that we can provide more data and more transparency, I think that will help the public at large to understand the benefits and also the costs of the way that we have been doing business.”

He adds that a healthier population is better for everyone, lowering healthcare costs and insurance rates. But Schroeck said that legislation could be stymied by a lack of knowledge among lawmakers and residents about the health impacts from pollution and the culture war framing of environmental justice that he said paints the issue as “a liberal pet project.”

Lawmakers also have a poor record of being proactive with environmental legislation, Schroeck said.

“We’re much better at, like looking backwards, coming up with cleanup standards and things, than we are at actually preventing harm in the first place,” he said.

He agrees with Landrum in southwest Detroit that more summers with wildfire smoke could create renewed urgency to manage air pollution as much as possible, changing the political calculus around cumulative impacts.

For now, Landrum says environmental advocates need to keep raising the issue until an opportune moment arrives to pass a bill like what happened in New Jersey.

“The intention is to keep putting it out there,” she said.

Mandatory Emissions Reductions (MER) for Climate Mitigation in the Power Sector

Executive Summary

Across the United States, fossil fuel infrastructure emits toxic air pollution and planet-warming greenhouse gases that drive climate change. Environmental justice (EJ) communities bear the brunt of both, living on the front lines of impacts from climate change while also suffering the localized environmental health harms caused by fossil fuel facilities in their vicinity. Despite these disproportionate impacts, climate mitigation policies remain focused on reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions without attention to the health-harming co-pollutants from the power sector. A just and equitable climate mitigation policy, however, makes the elimination of the sector’s outsize and inequitable impact on low-income communities and communities of color an explicit goal. From an environmental justice perspective, climate change mitigation measures, whether they use a technology-based standard, a greenhouse gas (GHG) target, or a market-based or other mechanism, should explicitly incorporate mandatory emissions reductions (MER) of health-harming co-pollutants in EJ communities.


This report lays out the justification and framework for an MER policy in the U.S. power sector. The essential steps of our framework are to identify power plants located in EJ communities, decide on the specific type of MER policy to apply, and finally, examine additional factors—such as measures of cumulative burden or vulnerability—that can inform which power plants should be prioritized for MER soonest or to the greatest extent. We offer several variants of an MER policy, with the ideal option being the closure of fossil fuel–fired power plants in EJ communities and a concomitant transition to renewable energy to maintain safe and reliable electricity generation.

To understand how the selection and prioritization of plants for MER might work in practice, we applied our framework to three states, New Jersey, Delaware, and Minnesota. We adopted a definition of “environmental justice community” based on quantitative thresholds for People of Color, those with limited English proficiency, and low-income populations, in line with recommendations of EJ advocates and the classification used in New Jersey’s 2020 landmark environmental justice law (A2212/S232). Once plants in EJ communities were identified, additional factors that reflect environmental burden, such as cancer risk and respiratory hazard related to toxic air pollution, as well as the emissions profiles of the plants, were incorporated as an illustrative, second layer of analysis for prioritizing plants and the most impacted EJ areas.

Throughout the development and application of our framework, the research team relied on the input and collaboration of key stakeholders representing EJ communities in the three case study states. These EJ partners played a crucial role in ground-truthing the set of plants that were identified and prioritized for an MER policy, which was important given the occasional gaps in data and the inherent limitations of relying on strict quantitative thresholds for definitional purposes.

Overall, the New Jersey, Delaware, and Minnesota case studies underscore the disproportionate siting of power plants in environmental justice communities. In all three states, there is an inequitable overrepresentation of People of Color in the fence-line populations residing near power plants, emphasizing the importance of considering race when developing strategies for the sector. As more attention, policy, and investment are directed toward a just energy transition, this work aims to highlight the need for, and to advance a path forward for, mandatory emissions reductions in power sector climate mitigation efforts.

To read the full report, download “Mandatory Emissions Reductions for Climate Mitigation in the Power Sector” below.

Our Comments to NJDEP: No Toxic Hydrogen Hubs in Overburdened Communities

Comments on: New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection’s Strategic Climate Action Plan

Submitted by the New Jersey Environmental Justice Alliance to the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection

October 19, 2023

Introduction

The New Jersey Environmental Justice Alliance (NJEJA) is a statewide organization mobilizing other environmental justice (EJ) organizations and individuals in order to increase the quality of life and upward mobility opportunities for EJ communities (low-income communities and communities Of Color), many of whom experience additional burdens resulting from histories of systemic racism. Our work covers a wide range of areas including plastics and incineration, air pollution reduction and cumulative impacts, ports and transportation, and clean energy policy. The principles and values of environmental justice practices are at the center of all we do, and we believe that the community’s vision of improvement will always be the most effective and important part of strategic development.


As such, we respectfully submit these comments today in an effort to support the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) in their “continuing commitment to furthering the promise of environmental justice through actions that advance climate justice” (Section 2). Our range of work, state-wide reach, and diversity of membership gives us a unique perspective on environmental protection and allows us to bring the concerns of overburdened, environmental justice communities to the forefront of the conversation.


Air Pollution, Co-Pollutants and Emissions Reduction
When identifying and implementing the best practices for addressing air pollution in the state of New Jersey, the DEP must ensure that all efforts to lower greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions work equally as hard to lower co-pollutants emissions. As the Strategic Climate Action Plan (the Plan)
draft clearly states:


“Climate impacts are likely to have even greater effects in communities already overburdened by pollution. That includes threats from co-pollutants, emitted alongside greenhouse gases, which have localized health effects.”

Section 2

The harmful effects of co-pollutants disproportionately impact already overburdened EJ communities. These aforementioned localized health risks, such as the effects of Particulate Matter (PM) 2.5, include premature death, cardiovascular disease, lung cancer, and pulmonary disease. Additionally, it must be acknowledged that fine PM has no lower threshold for health benefits. Driving down concentrations of fine PM and other co-pollutants in tandem with GHG emissions has immediate relevancy and benefit to EJ communities.


To this end, NJEJA is concerned both about the lack of specific accountability mechanisms and discussion of co-pollutants throughout the report. Within the report, reduction in co-pollutants is seen as a secondary benefit brought on by a reduction in GHG emissions. It must be recognized that a climate change mitigation policy that does not address co-pollutants directly, but instead treats them as secondary benefits is an ineffective policy. This can be seen in Section 4.2.6.1 when the Plan states that “anticipated outcomes could include reduced co-pollutant emissions.” Similarly, Section 7.2.2 states that “reducing greenhouse gas emissions will also have co-benefits of reducing co-pollutants.”


By not addressing co-pollutants in air pollution policy directly, we risk failing to improve air quality even if we are successful in our GHG policies. Climate change mitigation policy must address co-pollutants in order to ensure that we protect overburdened EJ communities. The DEP has the opportunity to drive down concentrations of co-pollutants in tandem with GHG emissions while advancing the States’ clean energy and climate-related priorities; this can only be achieved by treating greenhouse gases and co-pollutants as equally important and as equally devastating to our communities’ health, safety, and stability. To this end, we recommend that any policies which target greenhouse gas emissions include mechanisms to monitor and reduce co-pollutants as well. Such examples could include: factoring in co-pollutants to the Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) calculations (Section 4.2.2); including co-pollutants in the proposed annual Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Inventory Report (Section 4.2.2); developing a co-pollutant inventory for Department facilities as supplemental to the development of its greenhouse gas inventory (Section 4.2.3.1); increasing transparency and specificity to address co-pollutants while examining “avenues to reduce pollution in overburdened communities” (Section 7.1).


Hydrogen Hubs
Throughout the Plan, the DEP highlights their intention to support the development of a regional hydrogen hub (Section 4.2.5 and Section 4.2.6.1). We are deeply concerned that these plans will be advanced without consideration of community input, potential risks, and sufficient conversation with EJ communities who will bear the brunt of negative consequences from these facilities. The only way to produce hydrogen without worsening air pollution or further damaging the climate is to create “green hydrogen” which – as of April 2021 – represents less than 1% of the hydrogen produced. Hydrogen Hubs cannot be treated as the singular solution and any exploration of using hydrogen should be treated with extreme caution. EJ communities must be engaged and given accurate information regarding the impacts of these hubs to their communities. Furthermore, the DEP must sufficiently address the public and environmental risks of the hydrogen hubs program to New Jersey communities with robust discussion, full transparency, and meaningful engagement.

Lastly, the DEP should be clear in its understanding and interpretation of clean energy specifically as it relates to the development of renewable energy powered and/or hydrogen-powered fuel cells. The DEP must define “clean firm” and be precise about both the benefits and risks of these technologies. Clean technology cannot become a greenwashed term, and must represent truly clean technologies. Language regarding clean energy and clean technologies must ensure that environmental communities see real, tangible protection and that just transition practices are employed in every proposal and plan.


Sustainable Waste Management
The issue of sustainable waste management is a unique challenge in that it requires both highly specific community engagement and localized plans as well as a broad state-wide plan to handle the state’s waste. NJEJA firmly supports a prioritization of EPR as an effective tool to drastically reduce the amount of plastic waste, particularly plastic packaging waste, from entering the waste stream. When we reduce plastic production we send less waste to incinerators, which alleviates air pollution and other toxic-exposure health concerns in overburdened communities. We urge the DEP to continue developing EPR policies and infrastructure, in order to address waste issues in a manner that reduces the pressure on the individual, and instead handles these waste challenges at an infrastructural level targeting plastic reduction policies at the source of their production. Additionally, the DEP must be clear about their definitions of recycling and their development of facilities to handle sustainable waste management. First, the definition of recycling should prohibit chemical recycling, plastic to fuel, advanced recycling, pyrolysis, solvolysis, gasification, or any synonymous technology from being included as viable recycling techniques. These technologies have not been proven to be credible or safe techniques and expose communities, particularly already overburdened communities, to air pollutants and risk of fires, gas and chemical leaks, and costly clean-ups. Secondly, we recommend that the DEP define and explain their intention for similar terms including food waste recycling facilities and organic waste recycling.


Finally, the DEP must ensure that all evaluation of emerging technologies, educational programming, engagement opportunities, and strategic planning includes communities who will be primarily affected by these facilities. These communities must be prioritized in the stakeholder engagement process in order to address their concerns, ensure safety and stability in the development process, and sufficiently address environmental risks.


Climate Equity: Stakeholder Engagement and Community Input
Finally, climate equity work must include and center EJ communities. As the Plan acknowledges:

“Low-income communities and communities of color in New Jersey – and across the United States – are burdened with disproportionately high pollution, increased flood risk, and more intense heat waves as compared to wealthy, White communities due to decades of redlining and community disinvestment.”

Section 7

These communities have consistently been forced to navigate climate change dangers, environmental degradation, adverse health risks due to worsening air pollution, and other community risks. In order to ensure that past wrongs are not replicated in current plans, EJ communities must be included and recognized as leaders in the strategic planning process. The DEP must underscore the importance of community engagement in every action, plan, and regulatory development. We are supportive of the opportunities for stakeholder engagement listed within the Plan, and we encourage the DEP to ensure that these engagements are inclusive of all stakeholders including community-based and local non-profit organizations. Prioritizing direct engagement with communities not only builds trust between governmental bodies and the local communities, but often leads to increased support for projects by recognizing the value and knowledge of communities in leading the planning and development processes. This support serves to expedite the planning process, ensure that communities are enthusiastic about plans to build climate resilience across New Jersey, and create a cohesive, cross-sector coalition dedicated to helping the State reach its climate goals. All areas of the Plan would benefit from increasing community engagement, but areas that address the layout and specific conditions of a community can see increased benefit from direct community conversation. Such areas include the DEP’s work on sustainable waste management (Section 9.2.1), resilience funding (Section 5.2.2.1 and Section 5.2.2.2), and the Community Solar Energy Program (Section 4.2.5.1). Furthermore, the DEP should increase transparency and specificity regarding tools, tactics, and strategies to support overburdened communities; there must be prioritized, direct, and protective actions to reduce risk and strengthen the overall health and wellbeing of the community.


Conclusion
When the communities across the state that are most consistently facing climate risk are protected, we will see a trickle-up effect where every individual is protected. NJEJA reaffirms every community’s inherent right to a healthy, safe community. These comments have been submitted to address our concerns regarding air pollution, hydrogen technologies, truly clean energy, sustainable waste management, and robust stakeholder engagement. We offer our support in building a cleaner, more resilient New Jersey and are supportive of ongoing conversation with the NJDEP concerning our thoughts in these comments.

Prepared by:
Brooke Helmick, M.A.
Law and Policy Manager, New Jersey Environmental Justice Alliance

Press Release: EPA’s Proposed New Carbon Pollution Standards for Fossil Fuel-Fired Power Plants Will Fail to Protect EJ Communities

Press Release: EPA’s Proposed New Carbon Pollution Standards for Fossil Fuel-Fired Power Plants Will Fail to Protect EJ Communities

WASHINGTON (August 8, 2023) –The Tishman Environment and Design Center at The New School, the Center for the Urban Environment of the John S. Watson Institute for Urban Policy and Research at Kean University, the New Jersey Environmental Justice Alliance (NJEJA), and the Center for Earth, Energy and Democracy, along with 18 environmental justice and 9 allied organizations are submitting public comments today on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)’s proposed carbon pollution standards for coal and new natural gas fired power plants. 

Environmental justice (EJ) communities are on the frontlines of the adverse impacts of climate change and are disproportionately exposed to a wide range of polluting industries, including fossil fuel infrastructure like coal plants, natural gas plants, and pipelines. The use of carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) mechanisms and hydrogen co-firing in the power sector will further harm EJ communities that are already overburdened. The only real solution to climate change is the rapid and complete transition of the power sector away from all types of fossil fuels to energy efficiency and  renewable energy in the form of wind and solar power. We call attention to critical EJ concerns related to the proposed rule that would hinder a reliable, just, and truly clean power section transition. 

The EPA will finalize the standards in the coming months.

The following is a comment from Dr. Ana Baptista, The Tishman Environment and Design Center at The New School

Addressing climate change and decades of toxic exposure experienced by environmental justice communities means moving away from a dependence on fossil fuels and investing instead in renewable energy sources and infrastructure in communities. Supporting carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) and hydrogen co-firing in the power sector through massive amounts of public funding and policies like EPA’s proposed rule will perpetuate the fossil fuel industry, to the continued detriment of EJ communities. These same overburdened communities have time and again been sacrifice zones to unjust policies and infrastructure that place them on the frontlines of fossil fuel polluting structures. Environmental justice should be a priority for the EPA’s power sector rule rather than an afterthought . We urge the EPA to take seriously the environmental justice implications of this rule and consider cumulative impacts in decision-making processes related to the rule.”

 

The following is a comment from Dr. Nicky Sheats, John S. Watson Institute for Urban Policy and Research at Kean University

“Too many low-income communities and Communities of Color around the country are exposed to the harms of all types of polluting infrastructure and have disproportionately borne these cumulative burdens for too long. It’s time to right these wrongs. EPA’s proposed rule all but recognizes that CCS and hydrogen co-firing will add to toxic air pollution in communities living near power plants, and this is unacceptable when such communities already live with an unfair share of cumulative impacts from pollution. The EPA’s proposed carbon pollution standards must adopt a more affirmative approach toward environmental justice to address cumulative impacts. ” 

The following is a comment from Melissa Miles, New Jersey Environmental Justice Alliance

“A rapid, clean energy transition is indispensable to ensure that current and future generations have healthy and safe communities to live, work, play, learn, and worship in. We need policies that mandate emissions reductions in EJ communities and ensure the closure of fossil fuel powered plants first and foremost in EJ communities. The EPA’s proposed carbon pollution standards are an opportunity for the EPA to create equitable policies that truly center communities on the frontlines and bring us to a clean energy transition and just future for all.” 

 

The following is a comment from Bill Gallegos, Center for Earth Energy & Democracy

“We know that overwhelmingly the burden of pollution from fossil fuel powered power plants is borne by low income communities, communities of color and indigenous communities. We also know that the impacts of rising intensive heat cycles, extreme temperatures and the resulting power outages are experienced most acutely by environmental justice communities.  We are at a critical juncture in our nation’s history. We must meet the challenge of climate change like never before – in ways that center environmental justice communities. We urge the EPA to uphold its commitment to environmental justice and create policies that reduce carbon pollution from the power sector in ways that create benefits for environmental justice communities.”

 

Press Release: New Jersey Releases Rules for Landmark Environmental Justice Law

For Immediate Release: Monday, June 6, 2022


For more information regarding this statement, please contact: 

JV Valladolid, jvalladolid@ironboundcc.org   cell:  862-588-4715

 

Statement from Ironbound Community Corporation, 

New Jersey Environmental Justice Alliance, Clean Water Action,

 and South Ward Environmental Alliance


New Jersey Releases Landmark Environmental Justice Rules


     Environmental Justice (EJ) communities throughout New Jersey are on the brink of change as the landmark Environmental Justice Bill S232 comes closer to being realized.  Today’s release of long awaited rules that accompany this landmark EJ Law is a critically  important milestone. 


The law and now proposed rules tackle the decades-long pattern of dumping polluting facilities in communities Of Color and low-income communities. Under these new rules, polluting facilities will be required to undergo a robust environmental justice review before being permitted in overburdened, i.e., environmental justice communities. These precedent-setting rules will arm New Jersey regulators with the right to deny further harmful pollution in these neighborhoods. Environmental justice communities will finally have a chance to have what many people take for granted – clean air and a safer environment in which to thrive. 


The just released rules would not have been possible without the tireless efforts of New Jersey environmental justice advocates and organizations, as well as State Senator Singleton, State Senator Ruiz, Assemblyman McKeon, Governor Murphy, NJ Department of Environmental Protection (NJEP) Commissioner LaTourette and staff that led to the passage of the law (S232) in the first place.


This rule reflects two years of continued hard work, expertise and community knowledge of EJ advocates who worked alongside the NJDEP staff to develop a strong set of rules that reflect the ambition, significance and promise of the landmark EJ law. We are eager to see these rules adopted as written as soon as possible and finally put to use in the communities that have been sacrificed for far too long. 


New Jersey Environmental Justice Alliance, Ironbound Community Corp. Environmental Justice, South Ward Environmental Alliance, and Clean Water Action will be making sure that communities understand and are engaged with the public hearings regarding the proposed regulations. Too often when a historic bill such as S232 is passed, people stop paying attention after the bill is signed. It is imperative that our communities stay engaged. Until the final rule adoption occurs later this year, we  urge the NJDEP to act in the spirit of the law and as we continue to fight our current battles for environmental justice in New Jersey, including: a fourth fracked gas power plant proposed by Passaic Valley Sewerage Commission, threat of a sludge facility proposed, and waste facility expansions in Camden. 


The draft rules require the NJDEP to evaluate the environmental and public health impacts of various polluting facilities on overburdened communities when reviewing specific types of permit applications. It lays out a process for assessing the burden that new facilities may pose to communities that are already overburdened and directs the state to deny those permits that contribute to the existing stressors in those census blocks. It requires additional reviews of existing facilities in overburdened communities that undergo a renewal or expansion process and can apply more stringent conditions to those existing facilities. It also offers a robust set of public participation processes for local input. 



“This is an important first step to ensuring that communities Of Color and communities with low-income in New Jersey have a chance to attain the clean environment  that other communities in the state enjoy.”

– Nicky Sheats, Ph.D., Esq, NJEJA Trustee


“The South Ward community of Newark just wants to breathe clean air and enjoy their quality of life free from additional toxic facilities impacting the health of the neighborhood.”

– Kim Gaddy, Environmental Justice Director, Clean Water Action


“We are excited about reaching this pivotal moment in the trajectory of the EJ law. Environmental Justice communities will be paying specific attention to what warrants a compelling public interest, what does it mean to avoid harming the community and provisions around community engagement.  We need to ensure that no industry green washes their way through EJ law.”

– Maria Lopez-Nunez, Ironbound Community Corp.


“These rules represent the hard work and diligence of EJ activists that have worked tirelessly alongside NJDEP to produce the strongest environmental justice law in the nation. Finally, there is a light at the end of this journey towards environmental justice for all.” 

– Ana Baptista, Ph.D., The New School University, NJEJA & ICC Trustee


“One of the most critical details of the Environmental Justice Law is the robust public process required of permitting facilities. For far too long some of the worst actors have lied or bought their way into the good graces of a few key people and claimed that their ‘back room’ deals were community engagement. Even now some communities expect polluting industries to operate in obscurity and without their input. That all ends with the implementation of the EJ Law.”

– Melissa Miles, Executive Director, New Jersey Environmental Justice Alliance (NJEJA)


-end –